Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dr Burkley - seriously Lners?
129 views
Skip to first unread message
TJC76
Apr 28, 2012, 3:58:43 PM4/28/12
to
Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
Jean Davison
Apr 28, 2012, 8:08:14 PM4/28/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way and the CT
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
way.
Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would probably say,
"We don't know."
CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill in the
blanks. The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
witnesses have testified repeatedly.
Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
CE1126:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm
Jean
timstter
Apr 28, 2012, 8:10:10 PM4/28/12
to
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm
Anything sinister in it?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator
John Canal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:10:47 PM4/28/12
to
In article <c670f5fb-5c4b-4e19...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
TJC76 says...
Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care
less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make
several false statements in their autopsy report.
For example, the official story that they didn't know the bullet transited
JFK's lower neck/upper back until the next morning (when they supposedly
talked to Perry) is so ridiculous that they insulted the intelligence of
those who they hoped would believe it....but, alas, there are many who
did...and do, scholars included.
I'm not going to argue this theory...been there done that too many times
already...anyway, no one here believes anything anyone else says that
conflicts with their own theories.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
TJC76 says...
>
>Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
>Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
Yes, it smells that way.
>Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
>http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
>Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care
less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make
several false statements in their autopsy report.
For example, the official story that they didn't know the bullet transited
JFK's lower neck/upper back until the next morning (when they supposedly
talked to Perry) is so ridiculous that they insulted the intelligence of
those who they hoped would believe it....but, alas, there are many who
did...and do, scholars included.
I'm not going to argue this theory...been there done that too many times
already...anyway, no one here believes anything anyone else says that
conflicts with their own theories.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
burgundy
Apr 28, 2012, 8:15:04 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 2:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
undoubtedly blown the single bullet theory to pieces.
Burgundy
Bud
Apr 28, 2012, 8:15:54 PM4/28/12
to
On Apr 28, 3:58 pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
He didn`t see JFK get shot.
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
Mitch Todd
Apr 28, 2012, 8:16:17 PM4/28/12
to
"TJC76" <col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message:
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
related to the murder?
> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>
> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
related to the murder?
claviger
Apr 28, 2012, 10:42:51 PM4/28/12
to
verified he saw the same wounds and signed the Death Certificate. However,
he was neither a ER doctor nor a pathologist. In an interview a few years
later Burkley indicated a belief there was more than one shooter, but
never explained why. So it is curious he was not asked to testify on the
record. A second shooter does not automatically prove conspiracy. The
Donahue Theory proves why.
claviger
Apr 28, 2012, 10:43:09 PM4/28/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 28, 2012, 10:43:47 PM4/28/12
to
/sm
bigdog
Apr 28, 2012, 10:44:21 PM4/28/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:24:57 PM4/29/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:28:52 PM4/29/12
to
of the shoulders. And Burkley said the wound was at T-3 on the death
certificate. The SBT requires that the bullet enter ABOVE the top of the
shoulders.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:29:04 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/2012 8:16 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> "TJC76"<col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message:
>
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>
> Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
> physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
> family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
>
I like your cover-up thinking, but can you PROVE any of it?
> "TJC76"<col...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message:
>
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>
> Why would they have needed to? Burkley wasn't one of the treating
> physicians at Parkland, and he pretty much spent the autopsy with the
> family on the 13th floor of Bethesda Naval Hosiptal.
>
How did he see the back wound?
> If (god forbid) you were shot and killed on a public street, what are
> the chances that your GP would be asked to testify at any hearing
> related to the murder?
>
death certificate. Courts are kinda funny about that sort of stuff you know.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:29:44 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/2012 8:15 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:58 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
> He didn`t see JFK get shot.
>
He did witness the death at the hospital.
> On Apr 28, 3:58 pm, TJC76<cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>
> He didn`t see JFK get shot.
>
TJC76
Apr 29, 2012, 8:30:33 PM4/29/12
to
>
> Jean
I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
to call him a witness. He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, so they
simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
Lners.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 29, 2012, 8:30:48 PM4/29/12
to
On 4/28/2012 8:10 PM, John Canal wrote:
> In article<c670f5fb-5c4b-4e19...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
> TJC76 says...
>>
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>
> Yes, it smells that way.
>
> Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care
> less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make
> several false statements in their autopsy report.
>
Your conspiracy theory keeps expanding every week. Next week you'll
> In article<c670f5fb-5c4b-4e19...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
> TJC76 says...
>>
>> Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>
> Yes, it smells that way.
>
> Just my opinion (which just about everyone disagrees with and I could care
> less), but I believe Specter knew that Burkley had ordered Humes to make
> several false statements in their autopsy report.
>
claim that LBJ called up Humes and told him to lie.
burgundy
Apr 29, 2012, 8:31:55 PM4/29/12
to
Sandy McCroskey
Apr 30, 2012, 8:08:37 AM4/30/12
to
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 9:51:18 AM4/30/12
to
in the shirt and jacket was at T-3.
The hole in the autopsy photographs is higher than T-3.
So you'd have to become an alterationist. Then I could claim that
Burkley wrote "T1" and someone changed it to "T3."
Jean Davison
Apr 30, 2012, 9:53:32 AM4/30/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
There's no real evidence there.
Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
>He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
> Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
> witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
> on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
> the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
> Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
> didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, so they
> simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
here):
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/525/bulge.jpg/sr=1
....... is as high as the back wound here?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
> I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
> Lners.
reading."
If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
story there, Thalia?
Jean
Ace Kefford
Apr 30, 2012, 12:04:48 PM4/30/12
to
the testimony of the doctors involved. So, no need for Burkley. (2)
They might have been worried about having NON-assassination medical
information about President Kennedy getting into the record.
markusp
Apr 30, 2012, 5:24:53 PM4/30/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>
> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
>>
> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
Harper Fragment's disposition is quite inconsistent with his performance
of solemn duties earlier.
>
> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
> CE1126:
>
> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm
expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
Otherwise, if we look at it from his perspective, he likely would have
remained much better off having said nothing at all.
Thanks, Jean! Respectfully,
~Mark
John Canal
Apr 30, 2012, 5:27:56 PM4/30/12
to
In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Apr 29, 7:30=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:08=A0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> and the CT
>> > way.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would pro=
> in the
>> > blanks. =A0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
>as unknown to
>> > other witnesses called by the WC? =A0 Burkley didn't witness the
>> > shooting. =A0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> > wound. =A0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, bu=
>t failed to
>> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =A0The WC published it as
I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
Fast forward to Humes' WC testimony. If you read page 367 carefully he all
but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lower
neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wound
could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a robust
heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision nor
around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
transited until the infamous Humes-Perry phone call the next AM was a huge
fabrication.
There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list is
not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about the
throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and that
the bullet exited the throat.
You may disagree with that premise, but just for argument's sake let's say
I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Why
would they fabricate such a thing"?
I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn't
call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location described
in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to match
the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy photo,
not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report was
not definitive.
I know, "wow"!
:-)
I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wound
trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six floors
up.
As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wound
seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least at
that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have been
multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
orchestrated by the Soviets.
That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the back
wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wound
was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
throat wound all lined up.
And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue
between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really)
why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O]
even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
first noticed it [the back wound]!
If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement
on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
autopsy proper began.
The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited
until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
sure.
That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what
day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not
what time that phone call took place.
But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
That's why Specter never asked Greer WHY he didn't give Humes the
clothes....Specter knew Humes saw them. And how dumb that would have been
for Greer to have them stuffed in his locker at the White House vs. giving
them to Humes! What a silly official story. Note that Greer told the HSCA
he gave them to SSA Rybka, but did Rybka ever confirm that? :-)
But, IMO, they [HB&F] were clever, not dumb like the CTs and most cowlick
entry LNs like to think, so they did the following:
They made sure all the "surviving" (remember the body was gone as well as
the photographs) evidence matched...well sort of. That included the
clothes, Boswell's face sheet, the death certificate, and even the autopsy
report.
That's why the description of the back wound was so inappropriate....the
scalpula? The mastoid process? The acromion process? I think any ME would
agree those are poor anatomical referrences (my guess is that C7 or T1,
for example, would have been better, at least for the vertical location).
And those poor choices for anatomical referrences of course neatly fit the
opinion most here have re. Humes' competency, or lack thereof.
But, IMO, they "intentionally" ambiguously described the back wound in
their report...so no one could match it easily to the hole in the clothes
or where the death certificate and face sheet showed it to be.
I think Humes (and Burkley?) was as clever as most here think he was
incompetent.
All that being said, Humes would not have made such decisions on his
own...he just didn't have the rank.
Now, Burkley, on the other hand, was a two-star Rear Admiral at the time,
and was still the Kennedy family's personal physician.....wielding a lot
of power...especially around lower ranking Naval officers like Humes and
Boswell, not to mention, Stover. He would have been in the position
(whether or not he was being truthful we can't be absolutely certain, but
he actually said he was in charge) to make decisions like that.....
......and that's why I think the WC didn't call him to testify....it's too
difficult to get more than one participant of a perhaps ill-advised affair
to describe what happened exactly the same way.
"If" it happened like that (it's easy to say they shouldn't have done what
they did...but we weren't there), maybe they were too paranoid and decided
to err on the side of caution...as opposed to telling Hoover and the FBI
that night there "just may" have been other shooters?
It's too late now to find out exactly what happened.
John C.
Oh, P.S. for Marsh.....before you try to take this apart, tell us once
more about your "no-hits-to-the-back-of-his-head"...and "Humes et al
missed seeing ON THE BODY a bullet "entry" wound above his right eye that
you were able to detect on copies of the photos" theories before you
comment on my theory...so that we get a better idea of how you think and
how seriously we should listen to you.
Thanks.
>>He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
>> Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
>> witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
>> on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
>> the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
>> Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
>> didn't match the SB, so necessary to Oswald's lone guilt, =A0so they
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Apr 29, 7:30=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 8:08=A0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 2:58=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 There are two ways to answer this -- the LN way=
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 2:58=A0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
> and the CT
>> > way.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Since the answer is unknown, most LNs would pro=
>bably say,
>> > "We don't know."
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 CTs seem to let suspicion and mind-reading fill=
>> > "We don't know."
>>
> in the
>> > blanks. =A0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afraid
>> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0What knowledge could Burkley have had that w=
>>
>> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>as unknown to
>> > other witnesses called by the WC? =A0 Burkley didn't witness the
>> > shooting. =A0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> > wound. =A0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, bu=
>t failed to
>> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =A0The WC published it as
>> > CE1126:
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > Jean
>>
>> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
>> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
>> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
>> to call him a witness.
>
> Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicion.
>There's no real evidence there.
>
> Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
Hi Jean,
>>
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol...
>>
>> > Jean
>>
>> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
>> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
>> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
>> to call him a witness.
>
> Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicion.
>There's no real evidence there.
>
> Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
Fast forward to Humes' WC testimony. If you read page 367 carefully he all
but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lower
neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wound
could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a robust
heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision nor
around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
transited until the infamous Humes-Perry phone call the next AM was a huge
fabrication.
There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list is
not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about the
throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and that
the bullet exited the throat.
You may disagree with that premise, but just for argument's sake let's say
I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Why
would they fabricate such a thing"?
I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn't
call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location described
in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to match
the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy photo,
not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report was
not definitive.
I know, "wow"!
:-)
I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wound
trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six floors
up.
As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wound
seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least at
that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have been
multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
orchestrated by the Soviets.
That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the back
wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wound
was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
throat wound all lined up.
And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue
between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really)
why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O]
even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
first noticed it [the back wound]!
If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement
on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
autopsy proper began.
The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited
until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
sure.
That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what
day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not
what time that phone call took place.
But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
That's why Specter never asked Greer WHY he didn't give Humes the
clothes....Specter knew Humes saw them. And how dumb that would have been
for Greer to have them stuffed in his locker at the White House vs. giving
them to Humes! What a silly official story. Note that Greer told the HSCA
he gave them to SSA Rybka, but did Rybka ever confirm that? :-)
But, IMO, they [HB&F] were clever, not dumb like the CTs and most cowlick
entry LNs like to think, so they did the following:
They made sure all the "surviving" (remember the body was gone as well as
the photographs) evidence matched...well sort of. That included the
clothes, Boswell's face sheet, the death certificate, and even the autopsy
report.
That's why the description of the back wound was so inappropriate....the
scalpula? The mastoid process? The acromion process? I think any ME would
agree those are poor anatomical referrences (my guess is that C7 or T1,
for example, would have been better, at least for the vertical location).
And those poor choices for anatomical referrences of course neatly fit the
opinion most here have re. Humes' competency, or lack thereof.
But, IMO, they "intentionally" ambiguously described the back wound in
their report...so no one could match it easily to the hole in the clothes
or where the death certificate and face sheet showed it to be.
I think Humes (and Burkley?) was as clever as most here think he was
incompetent.
All that being said, Humes would not have made such decisions on his
own...he just didn't have the rank.
Now, Burkley, on the other hand, was a two-star Rear Admiral at the time,
and was still the Kennedy family's personal physician.....wielding a lot
of power...especially around lower ranking Naval officers like Humes and
Boswell, not to mention, Stover. He would have been in the position
(whether or not he was being truthful we can't be absolutely certain, but
he actually said he was in charge) to make decisions like that.....
......and that's why I think the WC didn't call him to testify....it's too
difficult to get more than one participant of a perhaps ill-advised affair
to describe what happened exactly the same way.
"If" it happened like that (it's easy to say they shouldn't have done what
they did...but we weren't there), maybe they were too paranoid and decided
to err on the side of caution...as opposed to telling Hoover and the FBI
that night there "just may" have been other shooters?
It's too late now to find out exactly what happened.
John C.
Oh, P.S. for Marsh.....before you try to take this apart, tell us once
more about your "no-hits-to-the-back-of-his-head"...and "Humes et al
missed seeing ON THE BODY a bullet "entry" wound above his right eye that
you were able to detect on copies of the photos" theories before you
comment on my theory...so that we get a better idea of how you think and
how seriously we should listen to you.
Thanks.
>>He was present in the motorcade, at Parkland
>> Hospital, at the autopsy, and signed the Death Certificate. If any
>> witness should of been called it was him. Of course, Dr Burkley stated
>> on the death certificate there was a bullet hole in Kennedy's back, at
>> the third thoracic vertebra (which matched the bullet holes in
>> Kennedy's shirt and jacket, and the autopsy photo.) But whoops, this
>> simply didn't call him. Problem solved.
>
> Do you really think that the hole in the jacket (gray line
>here):
>
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/525/bulge.jpg/sr=3D1
>
> Do you really think that the hole in the jacket (gray line
>here):
>
>
> ....... is as high as the back wound here?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
>
>> I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
>> Lners.
>
> And I'm amazed at how much CTs rely on suspicion and "mind
>reading."
>
> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>story there, Thalia?
>
>Jean
>
>
--
> ....... is as high as the back wound here?
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
>
>
>> I am just continually dumbfounded that this crap is tolerated by
>> Lners.
>
> And I'm amazed at how much CTs rely on suspicion and "mind
>reading."
>
> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>story there, Thalia?
>
>Jean
>
>
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
John Fiorentino
Apr 30, 2012, 7:09:02 PM4/30/12
to
Burkley was at Parkland and he was at Bethesda and he should have been
interviewed.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
interviewed.
John F.
"Mitch Todd" <recip...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f9c...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Canal
Apr 30, 2012, 7:12:16 PM4/30/12
to
Jean,
I misspoke (writing too much too fast?) on something I wrote in my initial
reply.
I forget the exact words I used but the gist was that there was a mountain
of evidence supporting the notion they knew a bullet entered his back and
exited his throat even before the body arrived.
I didn't mean to say that.
There's a mountain of evidence supporting the notion they knew about the
throat wound and some evidence they knew about the back wound even before
the body arrived.
While they knew early on the bullet transited, I don't think they knew
it's direction for sure until they got a close look at the back wound and
the abrasion collar that surely was there...not to mention the turned in
fibers around the bullet hole in the jacket.
They certainly knew it's direction by the time they indicated to the FBI
that the angle (45 to 60 deg.) of the short (inch or so) path into the
back was consistent with a shot from up and to the rear.
John
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
I misspoke (writing too much too fast?) on something I wrote in my initial
reply.
I forget the exact words I used but the gist was that there was a mountain
of evidence supporting the notion they knew a bullet entered his back and
exited his throat even before the body arrived.
I didn't mean to say that.
There's a mountain of evidence supporting the notion they knew about the
throat wound and some evidence they knew about the back wound even before
the body arrived.
While they knew early on the bullet transited, I don't think they knew
it's direction for sure until they got a close look at the back wound and
the abrasion collar that surely was there...not to mention the turned in
fibers around the bullet hole in the jacket.
They certainly knew it's direction by the time they indicated to the FBI
that the angle (45 to 60 deg.) of the short (inch or so) path into the
back was consistent with a shot from up and to the rear.
John
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
Apr 30, 2012, 7:37:45 PM4/30/12
to
one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
competing diagrams?
So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
bullet causing ALL the wounds.
What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
Mitch Todd
Apr 30, 2012, 10:38:56 PM4/30/12
to
Presence doesn't necessarily imply importance. Burkley didn't meaningfully
participate in the medical aspects of the case at either hospital, and
never uttered, wrote, or signed a sentence that materially changed the
case. I guess it would have been nice for him to have been deposed by the
Commission, but there is no reason to believe that Burkley would have
added anything to the conversation either way.
Though now that I think about it, Burkley would have known all of JFK's
medical issues. Maybe the Kennedy family preferred not to risk those being
too well known.
"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote :
participate in the medical aspects of the case at either hospital, and
never uttered, wrote, or signed a sentence that materially changed the
case. I guess it would have been nice for him to have been deposed by the
Commission, but there is no reason to believe that Burkley would have
added anything to the conversation either way.
Though now that I think about it, Burkley would have known all of JFK's
medical issues. Maybe the Kennedy family preferred not to risk those being
too well known.
"John Fiorentino" <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote :
> Burkley was at Parkland and he was at Bethesda and he should have been interviewed.
>
>
Jean Davison
Apr 30, 2012, 11:49:25 PM4/30/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Apr 30, 4:24 pm, markusp <markina...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> > What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> > other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> > shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> > wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
> Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
> seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
> lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
> It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
> of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
> He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
> expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
> Harper Fragment's disposition is quite inconsistent with his performance
> of solemn duties earlier.
>
How so?
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>
> > What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
> > other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
> > shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
> > wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
> Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
> seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
> lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
> It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
> of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
> He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
> expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
> Harper Fragment's disposition is quite inconsistent with his performance
> of solemn duties earlier.
>
>
>
> > Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
> > CE1126:
>
>
> If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
> expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
> early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
> indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
> caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
> some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
> Otherwise, if we look at it from his perspective, he likely would have
> remained much better off having said nothing at all.
Lancer has Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA in 1978:
> If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
> expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
> early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
> indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
> caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
> some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
> Otherwise, if we look at it from his perspective, he likely would have
> remained much better off having said nothing at all.
http://www.jfklancer.com/burkleyhsca.html
It sounds to me very much like his original statement in
1963.
>
> Thanks, Jean! Respectfully,
Thanks, Mark. Also respectully,
Jean
Anthony Marsh
May 1, 2012, 10:45:57 AM5/1/12
to
On 4/30/2012 5:24 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>>
>> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
>> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
>> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
> Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
> seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
> lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
> It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
> of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
> He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
> expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
In fact it was a stipulation that allowed the SS to remove the body.
> On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>>
>> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
>> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
>> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
> Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
> seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
> lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
> It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
> of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
> He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
> expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
Anthony Marsh
May 1, 2012, 10:48:23 AM5/1/12
to
On 4/30/2012 10:38 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> Presence doesn't necessarily imply importance. Burkley didn't meaningfully
> participate in the medical aspects of the case at either hospital, and
> never uttered, wrote, or signed a sentence that materially changed the
> case. I guess it would have been nice for him to have been deposed by the
> Commission, but there is no reason to believe that Burkley would have
> added anything to the conversation either way.
>
At Parkland he provided the Cortisol. At Bethesda he told Humes to
> Presence doesn't necessarily imply importance. Burkley didn't meaningfully
> participate in the medical aspects of the case at either hospital, and
> never uttered, wrote, or signed a sentence that materially changed the
> case. I guess it would have been nice for him to have been deposed by the
> Commission, but there is no reason to believe that Burkley would have
> added anything to the conversation either way.
>
ignore the adrenal glands.
Jean Davison
May 1, 2012, 4:41:33 PM5/1/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
theory?
> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> competing diagrams?
> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
degrees.
> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
Jean
Bud
May 1, 2012, 8:34:43 PM5/1/12
to
catching up to do.
Are you unsure who the victims were also?
> why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> one trajectory?
which eighteenth of a second the murderer`s bullet entered his victim?
> Why a different frame number every month and so many
> competing diagrams?
Anthony Marsh
May 1, 2012, 8:37:49 PM5/1/12
to
point out the errors in someone else's theory.
I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
>> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
>> competing diagrams?
>> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
>> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> degrees.
>
>> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>
> Plenty.
>
> Jean
Bud
May 1, 2012, 11:22:54 PM5/1/12
to
put on the table?
> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
> SBT.
> How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
> >> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> >> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> >> competing diagrams?
> >> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> >> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> > There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> > degrees.
>
> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
> >> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>
> > Plenty.
>
> In other words you don't even know what it is.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jean
claviger
May 1, 2012, 11:23:16 PM5/1/12
to
Anthony,
> In other words you don't even know what it is.
What is the Humes SBT?
> In other words you don't even know what it is.
Jean Davison
May 2, 2012, 9:27:44 AM5/2/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Apr 30, 4:27 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Hi, John,
I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surprise to
you, I'm sure).
I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
concealed these "metal probes" from S&O? I don't recall any mention of
"metal probes" until years later, and no photos of them, right? I don't
think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
general way.
>
> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
> throat wound all lined up.
>
> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue
> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really)
> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>
> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O]
> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>
> If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement
> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
> autopsy proper began.
>
> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>
> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
They're in on it, too?
>
> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited
> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>
> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
> sure.
>
> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
> phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what
> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not
> what time that phone call took place.
>
> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>
> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
Not necessarily. The FBI report on the autopsy implied
that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
wound.
Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
Jean
> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surprise to
you, I'm sure).
concealed these "metal probes" from S&O? I don't recall any mention of
"metal probes" until years later, and no photos of them, right? I don't
think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
general way.
>
> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
> throat wound all lined up.
>
> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue
> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really)
> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>
> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O]
> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>
> If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement
> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
> autopsy proper began.
>
> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>
> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>
> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited
> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>
> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
> sure.
>
> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
> phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what
> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not
> what time that phone call took place.
>
> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>
> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
wound.
Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
Jean
Jean Davison
May 2, 2012, 9:28:59 AM5/2/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
MY question, which you're avoiding: "If the SBT is no good,
why can't the CTs agree on an alternative, after all these years?"
>
>
> >> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> >> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> >> competing diagrams?
> >> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> >> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> > There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> > degrees.
>
> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
Tell that to the SBT critics, who have 1001 variations
> >> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> >> competing diagrams?
> >> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> >> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> > There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> > degrees.
>
> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
in number of shots, shooter locations, and types of weapons.
>
> >> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>
> > Plenty.
>
> In other words you don't even know what it is.
page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Jean
Anthony Marsh
May 2, 2012, 5:10:03 PM5/2/12
to
>>>> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>>
>>> Plenty.
>>
>> In other words you don't even know what it is.
>
> You haven`t shown you do.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Jean
>
>
John Canal
May 2, 2012, 5:33:52 PM5/2/12
to
In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Apr 30, 4:27=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.c=
>> >> On Apr 29, 8:08=3DA0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>s -- the LN way=3D
>> > and the CT
>> >> > way.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Since the answer is unknown, mos=
>t LNs would pro=3D
>nd-reading fill=3D
>> > in the
>> >> > blanks. =3DA0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afr=
>y have had that w=3D
>> >as unknown to
>> >> > other witnesses called by the WC? =3DA0 Burkley didn't witness the
>> >> > shooting. =3DA0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> >> > wound. =3DA0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other aut=
>opsy
>> >> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-pag=
>e on 11/27/63, bu=3D
>> >t failed to
>> >> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =3DA0The WC published it a=
>s
>> >> > CE1126:
>>
>> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol=
>l
>> but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lowe=
..I didn't know how to take you not replying [until now] to my rather
[check that, how about "extremely"] controversial explanation/theory for
why Burkley didn't testify before the WC......I was worried you didn't
even want to dignify it with a response. Note that if others had done
that, it wouldn't have bothered me, but you...I was concerned. Now, I'm
Ok.
:-)
As far as you disagreeing with me, of course I'm not surprised. Had you
agreed you would have joined a group of two [out of how many
researchers...hundreds?] who believe what I posited is feasible...and one
is myself. But the other one is extremely well respected in the JFK
research community, but I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name...hi
P....., hope you're doing well. (I think he still does read most of my
posts...no word yet from M....? Disappointing, but not surprised).
>> There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list is
>> not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about the
>> throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and that
>> the bullet exited the throat.
>>
>> You may disagree with that premise, but just for argument's sake let's sa=
[Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
conceal from S & O was the fact they knew the bullet transited. IOW, Humes
told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any more
than an inch or so.
But in my defense, S & O's report doesn't mention any metal probes....go
figure.
>I don't recall any mention of
>"metal probes" until years later,
Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
creating a false passage.
But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
>and no photos of them, right?
Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
[HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
not.
But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
common sense tell us they did.
>I don't
>think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
>general way.
I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
(in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
(supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.).
If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
of caution.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
evidence, etc. etc.
Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
rank than Humes to lie.
>>
>> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
>> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissu=
>e
>> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really=
President's side...not like S & O did off and on.
Also, Greer must have known Humes' ruse...I'm convinced he showed Humes
the clothes.
Come on Jean, you surely must be skeptical of the official story that
Greer had them put in his WH locker by Rybka vs. giving them to
Humes...remember Rbyka never acknowledged having the clothes, period. And
why on earth would Greer not give Humes the clothes? To serure
evidence?...but then have them put in his WH locker vs. giving them right
away to the FBI who was collecting and documenting evidence (the Sec Svc
knew that, re. Kellerman)?
>>
>> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
>> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transite=
bullet that entered the back didn't transit. Heck, O'Neill and I knew each
other (his wife worked with my sister) and communicated several
times......and he believed (in spite of what I argued to him about the
validity of the SBT) until his death that a fragment from the head shot
exited the throat.
>Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
reassurance.
:-)
Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
explanation in a civil manner, you could.
Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
But the silence of the other hard-liners, not to mention CTs (who don't
ike my non-conspiratorial explanations for things they find strange that
occurred during the autopsy) is deafening....or telling, IMO....are they
pretending they didn't see my post to you? Or are they simply saying it's
not worthy of their response?
Thanks again, Jean.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jean Davison says...
>
>On Apr 30, 4:27=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 29, 7:30=3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Apr 29, 8:08=3DA0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Apr 28, 2:58=3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 There are two ways to answer thi=
>> >> > On Apr 28, 2:58=3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>s -- the LN way=3D
>> > and the CT
>> >> > way.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Since the answer is unknown, mos=
>t LNs would pro=3D
>> >bably say,
>> >> > "We don't know."
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 CTs seem to let suspicion and mi=
>> >> > "We don't know."
>>
>nd-reading fill=3D
>> > in the
>> >> > blanks. =3DA0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC was afr=
>aid
>> >> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>> >> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> >> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0What knowledge could Burkle=
>> >> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>> >> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> >> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>y have had that w=3D
>> >as unknown to
>> >> > other witnesses called by the WC? =3DA0 Burkley didn't witness the
>> >> > shooting. =3DA0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> >> > wound. =3DA0He was present during part of the autopsy, but other aut=
>opsy
>> >> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-pag=
>e on 11/27/63, bu=3D
>> >t failed to
>> >> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =3DA0The WC published it a=
>s
>> >> > CE1126:
>>
>> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol=
>...
>>
>> >> > Jean
>>
>> >> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
>> >> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
>> >> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
>> >> to call him a witness.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based on suspicio=
>>
>> >> > Jean
>>
>> >> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. Not
>> >> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "man
>> >> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose not
>> >> to call him a witness.
>>
>n.
>> >There's no real evidence there.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes and Boswell.
>> >There's no real evidence there.
>>
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
>> explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
>>
>> Fast forward to Humes' WC testimony. If you read page 367 carefully he al=
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
>> explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
>>
>l
>> but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/lowe=
>r
>> neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wound
>> could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a robus=
>> neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wound
>t
>> heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision nor
>> around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
>>
>> What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
>> transited until the infamous Humes-Perry phone call the next AM was a hug=
>> heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision nor
>> around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
>>
>> What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
>e
>> fabrication.
>
>Hi, John,
>
> I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surprise to
>you, I'm sure).
Hi Jean,
>> fabrication.
>
>Hi, John,
>
> I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surprise to
>you, I'm sure).
..I didn't know how to take you not replying [until now] to my rather
[check that, how about "extremely"] controversial explanation/theory for
why Burkley didn't testify before the WC......I was worried you didn't
even want to dignify it with a response. Note that if others had done
that, it wouldn't have bothered me, but you...I was concerned. Now, I'm
Ok.
:-)
As far as you disagreeing with me, of course I'm not surprised. Had you
agreed you would have joined a group of two [out of how many
researchers...hundreds?] who believe what I posited is feasible...and one
is myself. But the other one is extremely well respected in the JFK
research community, but I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name...hi
P....., hope you're doing well. (I think he still does read most of my
posts...no word yet from M....? Disappointing, but not surprised).
>> There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list is
>> not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about the
>> throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and that
>> the bullet exited the throat.
>>
>y
>> I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Why
>> would they fabricate such a thing"?
>>
>> I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn't
>> call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location describe=
>> I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Why
>> would they fabricate such a thing"?
>>
>> I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn't
>d
>> in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to match
>> the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy photo,
>> not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report wa=
>> in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to match
>> the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy photo,
>s
>> not definitive.
>>
>> I know, "wow"!
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wound
>> trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six floor=
>> not definitive.
>>
>> I know, "wow"!
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wound
>s
>> up.
>>
>> As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
>> position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wound
>> seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
>> consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
>>
>> ...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least at
>> that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have bee=
>> up.
>>
>> As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
>> position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wound
>> seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
>> consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
>>
>> ...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least at
>n
>> multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
>> orchestrated by the Soviets.
>>
>> That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the back
>> wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wound
>> was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
>>
>> And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
>> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>
> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
>concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
My bad. Evidently they didn't conceal the use of metal probes from S & O
>> multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
>> orchestrated by the Soviets.
>>
>> That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the back
>> wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wound
>> was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
>>
>> And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
>> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>
> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
>concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
[Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
conceal from S & O was the fact they knew the bullet transited. IOW, Humes
told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any more
than an inch or so.
But in my defense, S & O's report doesn't mention any metal probes....go
figure.
>I don't recall any mention of
>"metal probes" until years later,
didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
creating a false passage.
But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
>and no photos of them, right?
[HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
not.
But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
common sense tell us they did.
>I don't
>think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
>general way.
(in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
(supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.).
If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
of caution.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
evidence, etc. etc.
Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
rank than Humes to lie.
>>
>> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
>> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>e
>> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really=
>)
>> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
>> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>>
>> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S & O=
>> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fracture
>> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>>
>]
>> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>> If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcemen=
>> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>t
>> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>
>They're in on it, too?
They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
>> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>
>They're in on it, too?
President's side...not like S & O did off and on.
Also, Greer must have known Humes' ruse...I'm convinced he showed Humes
the clothes.
Come on Jean, you surely must be skeptical of the official story that
Greer had them put in his WH locker by Rybka vs. giving them to
Humes...remember Rbyka never acknowledged having the clothes, period. And
why on earth would Greer not give Humes the clothes? To serure
evidence?...but then have them put in his WH locker vs. giving them right
away to the FBI who was collecting and documenting evidence (the Sec Svc
knew that, re. Kellerman)?
>>
>> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
>d
>> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>>
>> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
>> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
>> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
>> sure.
>>
>> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
>> phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget wha=
>> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>>
>> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
>> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
>> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
>> sure.
>>
>> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
>t
>> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
>> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if no=
>> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
>t
>> what time that phone call took place.
>>
>> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
>> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>>
>> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
>> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
>Not necessarily. The FBI report on the autopsy implied
>that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
>wound.
:-) Jean, that's because they assumed (per Humes' deception, IMO) the
>> what time that phone call took place.
>>
>> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
>> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>>
>> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
>> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
>Not necessarily. The FBI report on the autopsy implied
>that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
>wound.
bullet that entered the back didn't transit. Heck, O'Neill and I knew each
other (his wife worked with my sister) and communicated several
times......and he believed (in spite of what I argued to him about the
validity of the SBT) until his death that a fragment from the head shot
exited the throat.
>Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
reassurance.
:-)
Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
explanation in a civil manner, you could.
Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
But the silence of the other hard-liners, not to mention CTs (who don't
ike my non-conspiratorial explanations for things they find strange that
occurred during the autopsy) is deafening....or telling, IMO....are they
pretending they didn't see my post to you? Or are they simply saying it's
not worthy of their response?
Thanks again, Jean.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
May 2, 2012, 10:33:22 PM5/2/12
to
>> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>
> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
> concealed these "metal probes" from S&O? I don't recall any mention of
> "metal probes" until years later, and no photos of them, right? I don't
> think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
> general way.
>
I'm not even concerned about his idea about why Humes would hide the
>
> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
> concealed these "metal probes" from S&O? I don't recall any mention of
> "metal probes" until years later, and no photos of them, right? I don't
> think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
> general way.
>
probing from S&O. My question is HOW could he pull it off if S&O were
watching his every move? Was he a magician? Did he blindfold them? The
fact is that S&O did not stay all night. They easily could have left
before The Three Stooges though to use probes.
And maybe the only reason why they decided to use probes was because of
that fact that you never want to admit, that they were ORDERED by an
unnamed general to not dissect the back wound as per standard autopsy
protocol.
Your point about the photos is naive. You are one of the WC defenders who
never publicly admits that they destroyed at least 5 of the official
autopsy photos. One of those supposedly showed the probe.
And I am sick and tired of you WC defenders saying every time we bring up
the government destroying evidence, "Oh, so the dog ate your homework?"
When you say "years later" I assume that you are trying to play the Loftus
card to dismiss his ARRB testimony. But this incident points out why it is
important to reexamine any important case. The WC allowed and encouraged
Humes to lie. He couldn't get away with lying under oath with the threat
of perjury because the ARRB had the power to negotiate an agreement to
release Humes from his secrecy agreement and force him to tell the truth.
>>
>> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
>> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissue
>> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really)
>> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>>
>> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S& O]
>>
>> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>> If they [HB&F& Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcement
>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>
> They're in on it, too?
You have to sign up for his newsletter to keep up to date on who's been
>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>
> They're in on it, too?
added to the conspiracy every week. You are so last week!
>
>>
>> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed,
>> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet transited
>> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>>
>> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely was
>> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter that
>> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
>> sure.
>>
>> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
>> phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget what
>> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they were
>> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if not
>> what time that phone call took place.
>>
>> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make the
>> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>>
>> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
>> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
>
> Not necessarily. The FBI report on the autopsy implied
> that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
> wound.
>
> Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>
the conspiracy that I would never do.
> Jean
Bud
May 2, 2012, 10:34:38 PM5/2/12
to
> >> How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
> >> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
> >>>> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> >>>> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> >>>> competing diagrams?
> >>>> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> >>>> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> >>> There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> >>> degrees.
>
> >> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
>
> > Where is that written?
>
> By you WC defenders.
> >>>> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>
> >>> Plenty.
>
> >> In other words you don't even know what it is.
>
> > You haven`t shown you do.
>
> I've only uploaded it a few thousand times.
> >>> Jean
burgundy
May 2, 2012, 10:36:30 PM5/2/12
to
them out because their testimony would be no help; rather, it would show
the SBT to be impossible. Humes didn't know that at the time but by the
time the two FBI agents met with Specter, the ambitious and future senator
knew.... so they were not called. It's that simple. Read the ARRB
testimony.
Jean Davison
May 3, 2012, 9:12:03 AM5/3/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
shoulder" and that when Humes probed it with a finger he felt the end of
it. In 1997 Sibert recalled the wound being "below the scapula," but the
autopsy photo shows it above the scapula, imo:
http://www.artearthmann.com/conspiracyFolder/assetsFolder/jfk_backWoundRuler3_231x231.jpg
How can their 1997 testimony disprove the SBT when it conflicts
with their earlier account and the autopsy photograph? (Serious,
non-rhetorical question.)
Jean
Anthony Marsh
May 3, 2012, 10:30:11 AM5/3/12
to
Whose SBT? At the autopsy that night no one had a SBT.
Anthony Marsh
May 3, 2012, 10:30:23 AM5/3/12
to
>
>>>> How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>
>>>>>> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
>>>>>> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
>>>>>> competing diagrams?
>>>>>> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
>>>>>> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>>
>>>>> There's very little variation there, a few frames or
>>>>> degrees.
>>
>>>> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
>>
>>> Where is that written?
>>
>> By you WC defenders.
>
>
> Every time you say something silly you try to attribute it to us.
>
>
>>>>>> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>>
>>>>> Plenty.
>>
>>>> In other words you don't even know what it is.
>>
>>> You haven`t shown you do.
>>
>> I've only uploaded it a few thousand times.
>
>
> Claims on top of claims isn`t support.
>
That is your MO.
>
>>>>> Jean
>
>
Bud
May 3, 2012, 10:31:56 AM5/3/12
to
autopsy report?
claviger
May 3, 2012, 1:55:28 PM5/3/12
to
Anthony,
> Please quote where S&O said they saw the metal probes.
> Whose SBT? At the autopsy that night no one had a SBT.
Deposition of Francis X O’Neill, Jr
September 12, 1997 page 7 PDF Version [ p 25 - 30 ]
page 30 [ 20-22 ]
page 31 [1-5 ]
"Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and
you’re only about a foot and half away or two feet away. And viewing
them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was
absolutely no point of exit; and they couldn’t go any further."
O'Neill doesn't say if it was a metal or plastic probe.
> Please quote where S&O said they saw the metal probes.
> Whose SBT? At the autopsy that night no one had a SBT.
September 12, 1997 page 7 PDF Version [ p 25 - 30 ]
page 30 [ 20-22 ]
page 31 [1-5 ]
"Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and
you’re only about a foot and half away or two feet away. And viewing
them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was
absolutely no point of exit; and they couldn’t go any further."
O'Neill doesn't say if it was a metal or plastic probe.
Bud
May 3, 2012, 1:57:43 PM5/3/12
to
> >>>> How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
> >>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
> >>>>>> If the SBT is real, why can't you WC defenders agree on one frame and
> >>>>>> one trajectory? Why a different frame number every month and so many
> >>>>>> competing diagrams?
> >>>>>> So far you have a transiting bullet. But that's a long way from one
> >>>>>> bullet causing ALL the wounds.
>
> >>>>> There's very little variation there, a few frames or
> >>>>> degrees.
>
> >>>> If it's the absolute truth there is no room for variations.
>
> >>> Where is that written?
>
> >> By you WC defenders.
>
> > Every time you say something silly you try to attribute it to us.
>
> It's what I see you WC defenders do all the time.
> >>>>>> What's the matter with the Humes SBT?
>
> >>>>> Plenty.
>
> >>>> In other words you don't even know what it is.
>
> >>> You haven`t shown you do.
>
> >> I've only uploaded it a few thousand times.
>
> > Claims on top of claims isn`t support.
>
> I just uploaded it again and you still refuse to read it.
> That is your MO.
>
>
> >>>>> Jean
Jean Davison
May 3, 2012, 7:39:51 PM5/3/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On May 2, 4:33 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
John, I think that the last time we spoke I mentioned that I try
to stay out of the medical threads and other technical areas. It's nothing
personal.
> than an inch or so. In my defense, S & O's report doesn't mention any metal probes....go
> figure.
The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S & O:
QUOTE:
>>>>
"The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we
understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will
call is the profound underscore *profound* unreliabillity of eyewitness
testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else
that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35-year-old
eyewitness testimony.
"I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in
phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the
autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and
they are profoundly unreliable.
"There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present
at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with
each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about
what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years
later. Their stories just were not the same story.
UNQUOTE
>
> >I don't recall any mention of
> >"metal probes" until years later,
>
> Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
> didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
> of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
> go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
> creating a false passage.
>
> But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
> out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
> evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
> to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
> afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
>
> My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
> the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
> probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
I think they were genuinely puzzled, John. I just don't see
any plausible way around that.
>
> >and no photos of them, right?
>
> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
> not.
I'd bet on "misremembering."
>
> But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
> and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
> interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
> his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
> bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
> to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
>
> And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
> them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
> common sense tell us they did.
Not if they were afraid of creating a false passage.
>
> >I don't
> >think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
> >general way.
>
> I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
> (in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
> (supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
> cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
> in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
> etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.).
>
> If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
> to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
> the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
> the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
It wasn't his job to determine that. Or to misrepresent
the evidence based on speculation.
>
> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>
> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
> of caution.
>
> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
> evidence, etc. etc.
>
> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
> rank than Humes to lie.
Ah, so Humes et al. were *ordered* to lie? When do you
suppose that conversation took place?
You're asking me to read Greer's mind, John. Can't do it.
The clothes didn't make it "obvious the bullet exited the
throat," because the FBI didn't conclude the bullet transited even after
examining the clothes at the FBI Lab.
>
> >Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>
> That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
> 99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
> wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
> reassurance.
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
> explanation in a civil manner, you could.
>
> Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
That's fine, John. Let's go with "agree to disagree."
Jean
> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
to stay out of the medical threads and other technical areas. It's nothing
personal.
> figure.
The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S & O:
QUOTE:
>>>>
"The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we
understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will
call is the profound underscore *profound* unreliabillity of eyewitness
testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else
that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35-year-old
eyewitness testimony.
"I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in
phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the
autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and
they are profoundly unreliable.
"There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present
at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with
each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about
what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years
later. Their stories just were not the same story.
UNQUOTE
>
> >I don't recall any mention of
> >"metal probes" until years later,
>
> Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
> didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
> of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
> go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
> creating a false passage.
>
> But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
> out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
> evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
> to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
> afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
>
> My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
> the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
> probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
any plausible way around that.
>
> >and no photos of them, right?
>
> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
> not.
>
> But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
> and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
> interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
> his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
> bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
> to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
>
> And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
> them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
> common sense tell us they did.
>
> >I don't
> >think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
> >general way.
>
> I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
> (in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
> (supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
> cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
> in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
> etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.).
>
> If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
> to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
> the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
> the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
the evidence based on speculation.
>
> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>
> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
> of caution.
>
> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
> evidence, etc. etc.
>
> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
> rank than Humes to lie.
suppose that conversation took place?
throat," because the FBI didn't conclude the bullet transited even after
examining the clothes at the FBI Lab.
>
> >Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>
> That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
> 99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
> wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
> reassurance.
>
> :-)
>
> Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
> explanation in a civil manner, you could.
>
> Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
Jean
John McAdams
May 3, 2012, 7:48:01 PM5/3/12
to
On 3 May 2012 19:39:51 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On May 2, 4:33 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
know the gospel truth.
And they are lying (if their statements inculpate Oswald), or letting
the truth slip out (if they support the idea of a conspiracy).
Confusion never happens. People never have ideas that are just (in
hindsight) wacky. They always know the absolute truth from point
zero.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>On May 2, 4:33 pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
>> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
>> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
>> not.
>
> I'd bet on "misremembering."
>
No. In the conspiracy world, nobody is just mistaken. They always
>> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
>> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
>> not.
>
> I'd bet on "misremembering."
>
know the gospel truth.
And they are lying (if their statements inculpate Oswald), or letting
the truth slip out (if they support the idea of a conspiracy).
Confusion never happens. People never have ideas that are just (in
hindsight) wacky. They always know the absolute truth from point
zero.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
May 3, 2012, 7:50:37 PM5/3/12
to
On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
person would go with the best theory out there.
Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
the front?
>I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
information than he did?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>>>> alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>>>> separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>>>> story there, Thalia?
>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>
>>
>> Nice evasion, Tony. What's your better-than-the-SBT
>> theory?
>>
>
>Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>point out the errors in someone else's theory.
Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
>>>
>>>> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>>>> alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>>>> separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>>>> story there, Thalia?
>>>
>>>> Jean
>>>
>>
>> Nice evasion, Tony. What's your better-than-the-SBT
>> theory?
>>
>
>Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>point out the errors in someone else's theory.
person would go with the best theory out there.
Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
the front?
>I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
information than he did?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
May 3, 2012, 7:57:58 PM5/3/12
to
On 30 Apr 2012 17:24:53 -0400, markusp <marki...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>>
>On Saturday, April 28, 2012 7:08:14 PM UTC-5, Jean Davison wrote:
>>>
>> What knowledge could Burkley have had that was unknown to
>> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
>> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
>> other witnesses called by the WC? Burkley didn't witness the
>> shooting. He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the throat
>> wound. He was present during part of the autopsy, but other autopsy
>> witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>
>Burkley was the last physician to see and handle the Harper Fragment. It
>seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
>lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
>It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
>of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
>He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
>expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
>seems mighty peculiar that he would receive this chunk of bone, and then
>lay a paper trail that he gave it right back to the FBI.
>
>It seems to me that up to that point, Burkley had been "comfortable" (lack
>of better words) in his role as physician to the assassinated president.
>He signed the death certificate, and apparently he understood the
>expectation that he stay with the body. Yet his actions concerning the
>Harper Fragment's disposition is quite inconsistent with his performance
>of solemn duties earlier.
>
>>
>> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
>> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
>> CE1126:
>>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm
>
>If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
>expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
>early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
>indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
>caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
>some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
Mark, people become buffs for all sorts of reasons, often having
>of solemn duties earlier.
>
>>
>> Burkley wrote an 8 1/2-page on 11/27/63, but failed to
>> mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. The WC published it as
>> CE1126:
>>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062a.htm
>
>If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
>expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
>early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
>indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
>caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
>some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
nothing to do with their actual witness experience or professional
experties.
Let me quote my own website:
<Quote on>
Dr. George Burkley
Dr. George Burkley was a Navy Admiral and the president’s personal
physician, and thus he was around in the ER at Parkland, with
Kennedy’s body on the flight back to Washington, and in the room
during the autopsy at Bethesda. It would seem that he saw and knew a
lot.
Thus it might seem important that on March 18, 1977, his personal
lawyer talked by phone the HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague and told
Sprague that Burkley “has information in the Kennedy assassination
indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.”[24]
Just what was this explosive information? Nothing produced by the
HSCA gives any clue. But researcher Paul Hoch reported in the 5/31/87
issue of his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy[25] “Dr. Burkley recently
told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been
part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and
traveled was indicative of financial support.” Huh? No altered
wounds? No wounds requiring a shot from the front? No extra bullets?
The Warren Commission meticulously examined Oswald’s finances, and
published the results.[26] Maybe they got it wrong. But if they did,
Burkley was in no better position to know that than your eccentric
cousin who has a whole bookcase full of conspiracy volumes and talks
all the time about the Illuminati.
<Quote off>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
May 3, 2012, 8:41:47 PM5/3/12
to
incompetent.
Village Theatre Guild
May 3, 2012, 11:35:11 PM5/3/12
to
in the works... the SBT ... there's a difference of about 10 days.
Anthony Marsh
May 3, 2012, 11:38:38 PM5/3/12
to
with you that the entrance wound was above the scapula, but can you
actually see the scapular in the autopsy photos you have?
> http://www.artearthmann.com/conspiracyFolder/assetsFolder/jfk_backWoundRuler3_231x231.jpg
>
> How can their 1997 testimony disprove the SBT when it conflicts
> with their earlier account and the autopsy photograph? (Serious,
> non-rhetorical question.)
>
>
> Jean
John Canal
May 3, 2012, 11:42:59 PM5/3/12
to
In article <10719a1f-d4b4-4dce...@z6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 2, 4:33=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups=
>> >> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >> >> On Apr 29, 8:08=3D3DA0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>s to answer thi=3D
>> >s -- the LN way=3D3D
>> >> > and the CT
>> >> >> > way.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Since the answer =
>is unknown, mos=3D
>> >t LNs would pro=3D3D
>uspicion and mi=3D
>> >nd-reading fill=3D3D
>> >> > in the
>> >> >> > blanks. =3D3DA0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC wa=
>s afr=3D
>edge could Burkle=3D
>> >y have had that w=3D3D
>> >> >as unknown to
>> >> >> > other witnesses called by the WC? =3D3DA0 Burkley didn't witness =
>the
>> >> >> > shooting. =3D3DA0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the t=
>hroat
>> >> >> > wound. =3D3DA0He was present during part of the autopsy, but othe=
>r aut=3D
>rote an 8 1/2-pag=3D
>> >e on 11/27/63, bu=3D3D
>> >> >t failed to
>> >> >> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =3D3DA0The WC published=
> it a=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> > CE1126:
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_=
>Vol=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> >> > Jean
>>
>> >> >> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. =
>Not
>> >> >> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "=
>man
>> >> >> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose n=
>on suspicio=3D
> al=3D
>> >l
>> >> but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/l=
>owe=3D
>> >r
>> >> neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wou=
>nd
>> >> could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a ro=
>bus=3D
>> >t
>> >> heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision n=
>hug=3D
>> >e
>> >> fabrication.
>>
>> >Hi, John,
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surp=
Well you swam to the middle of this lake already, I'm surprised that you
don't want to continue to the other side. But I understand.
:-)
>> As far as you disagreeing with me, of course I'm not surprised. Had you
>> agreed you would have joined a group of two [out of how many
>> researchers...hundreds?] who believe what I posited is feasible...and one
>> is myself. But the other one is extremely well respected in the JFK
>> research community, but I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name...hi
>> P....., hope you're doing well. (I think he still does read most of my
>> posts...no word yet from M....? Disappointing, but not surprised).
>>
>> >> There is also a mountain (I won't bore you with a list, but the list i=
>s
>> >> not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about =
>the
>> >> throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and tha=
> sa=3D
>> >y
>> >> I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Wh=
>'t
>> >> call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location descr=
>ibe=3D
>> >d
>> >> in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to mat=
>ch
>> >> the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy phot=
>o,
>> >> not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report=
> wa=3D
>und
>> >> trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six fl=
>oor=3D
> at
>> >> that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have =
>bee=3D
>ck
>> >> wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wou=
>s
>> told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any mor=
>e
>> than an inch or so. In my defense, S & O's report doesn't mention any met=
>> >I don't recall any mention of
>> >"metal probes" until years later,
>>
>> Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
>> didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
>> of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
>> go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
>> creating a false passage.
>>
>> But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
>> out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
>> evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
>> to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
>> afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
>>
>> My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
>> the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
>> probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
>
> I think they were genuinely puzzled, John. I just don't see
>any plausible way around that.
So your position is that they didn't know about Dan Rather's announcement
that afternoon on national TV that the bullet transited...or hear about
the announcement at the PH news conf. that there was a throat wound....or
that they couldn't figure out from all the medical and forensic evidence
that the bullet transited?
They saw that the apex of the pleaura and lung was bruised as well as the
muscels around the throat...and knew that that bruising had to have
occurred when he was shot and still--for a few minutes anyway--had a good
heartbeat.
Conversley they knew that there was no bruising around the incisions,
including the trach incision, made by the PH docs because his heartbeat at
that time had all but stopped. In a nutshell they knew the bullet
transited...and they didn't need to probe the wound, hear about the PH
news conf. or Rather's announcement, or see the clothers to figure that
out.
If they knew that (the bruising) and were forthcoming with S & O, then why
on God's green earth did the later think the bullet popped out?
Jean, the answer to this question is what my argument is all about....can
you answer it? Don't you think it's relevant, if not pivotal?
S & O were decieved....their report is full of inaccuracies, e.g. the
autopsists dixcovered the back wound during the late stages of the
autopsy?????
Jean they found the back wound right away during the pre-autopsy external
examination of the body.
There has to be a logical reason for why S & O were decieved that
night.....and the CBS memo is spot on...you must think it's at least
possible that Humes did not want Hoover to know the path of the bullet
didn't appear to be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
>> >and no photos of them, right?
>>
>> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
>> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
>> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
>> not.
>
> I'd bet on "misremembering."
It doesn't matter....there was more than enough evidence to show them the
bullet transited, even if they didn't hear about Rather's announcement of
see the clothes. set aside the bruised lun, pleura, ans neck muscels,
don't you think they saw on the X-rays the air in the tissue between the
throat and back wounds...or the debris around C7/T1, not to mention the
slight fracture of the transverse process there?
Ok, I know...you think they didn't.
:-(
>> But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
>> and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
>> interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
>> his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
>> bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
>> to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
>>
>> And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
>> them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
>> common sense tell us they did.
>
> Not if they were afraid of creating a false passage.
Again, it doesn't matter if they probed the wound or not...the testimony
of several witnesses shows they did, but if they didn't there was still
more than enough evidence showing them the bullet transited.
BTW, I didn't even list all the probe witnesses.
Anyway, Humes testified they knew the throat muscels had been bruised at
the instant he was shot....same with the apex of the pleura and lung.
>> >I don't
>> >think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
>> >general way.
>>
>> I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
>> (in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
>> (supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
>> cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
>> in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
>> etc., or (CT's) not seeing "other" bullet entry wounds in his head, etc.)=
ordinarilly make...we can't always go "by the book".
>> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
>> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
>> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
>> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>>
>> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
>> of caution.
>>
>> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
>> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
>> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
>> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
>> evidence, etc. etc.
>>
>> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
>> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
>> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
>> rank than Humes to lie.
>
> Ah, so Humes et al. were *ordered* to lie? When do you
>suppose that conversation took place?
Ah, your sarcasm doesn't become you.
:-)
Whether or not he should have held back that night from the FBI that they
knew the bullet transited is debateable...but the facts show he did.
Jean, I realize you don't have a military background, but I spent my
career in the Air Force....trust me there's no way in Hades that a Naval
Officer with an 05 paygrade [Humes] is going to feed false information to
the FBI or even falsify an autopsy report (especially if it was an autopsy
on the President) if there's a two-star Naval officer (Burkley) present or
involved.
I think what they did, while perhaps ill-advised, was well intended.
>> >> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, =
>ssu=3D
>> >e
>> >> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not rea=
>lly=3D
>> >)
>> >> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fractu=
>re
>> >> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T=
>1?
>>
>> >> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S =
>& O=3D
>> >]
>> >> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late sta=
>ges
>> >> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one wh=
>men=3D
>> >t
>> >> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base =
>of
>> >> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when the=
>>
>>
>> >> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed=
>,
>> >> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet trans=
>ite=3D
>s
>> >> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter t=
>wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they w=
>ere
>> >> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if=
> no=3D
consistent with a transiting bullet.....those non-SBT believers thing that
the docs at PH made those slits and the tie nick....surely you don't agree
with them?
>> >Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>>
>> That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
>> 99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
>> wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
>> reassurance.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
>> explanation in a civil manner, you could.
>>
>> Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
>
> That's fine, John. Let's go with "agree to disagree."
Ok, with me unless you make counter-points that I feel need rebuting.
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jean Davison says...
>
>On May 2, 4:33=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> In article <700b50a1-0c4a-4ed9-afab-2e5b507d9...@r32g2000yqj.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 30, 4:27=3DA0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> Jean Davison says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> In article <e5ab269d-ceef-4002-a644-9553c7730...@9g2000yqp.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> Jean Davison says...
>>
>> >> >On Apr 29, 7:30=3D3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>> >> Jean Davison says...
>>
>> >> >> On Apr 29, 8:08=3D3DA0am, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com> wr=
>ote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Apr 28, 2:58=3D3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 There are two way=
>> >> >> > On Apr 28, 2:58=3D3DA0pm, TJC76 <cole...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > Why wasn't Dr Burkley interviewed by the WC?
>>
>s to answer thi=3D
>> >s -- the LN way=3D3D
>> >> > and the CT
>> >> >> > way.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Since the answer =
>is unknown, mos=3D
>> >t LNs would pro=3D3D
>> >> >bably say,
>> >> >> > "We don't know."
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 CTs seem to let s=
>> >> >> > "We don't know."
>>
>uspicion and mi=3D
>> >nd-reading fill=3D3D
>> >> > in the
>> >> >> > blanks. =3D3DA0The typical CT answer would be, "Because the WC wa=
>s afr=3D
>> >aid
>> >> >> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>> >> >> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> >> >> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0What knowl=
>> >> >> > Burkley might reveal a conspiracy."
>>
>> >> >> > >http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/The_Missing_Physician
>>
>> >> >> > > Seriosuly, the stench of corruptuion is putrid.
>>
>edge could Burkle=3D
>> >y have had that w=3D3D
>> >> >as unknown to
>> >> >> > other witnesses called by the WC? =3D3DA0 Burkley didn't witness =
>the
>> >> >> > shooting. =3D3DA0He arrived at Parkland too late to observe the t=
>hroat
>> >> >> > wound. =3D3DA0He was present during part of the autopsy, but othe=
>r aut=3D
>> >opsy
>> >> >> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>> >> >> > =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 =3D3DA0 Burkley w=
>> >> >> > witnesses have testified repeatedly.
>>
>rote an 8 1/2-pag=3D
>> >e on 11/27/63, bu=3D3D
>> >> >t failed to
>> >> >> > mention anything suggesting a conspiracy. =3D3DA0The WC published=
> it a=3D
>> >s
>> >> >> > CE1126:
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_=
>Vol=3D
>> >...
>>
>> >> >> > Jean
>>
>> >> >> I suspect it was because he was an equal match for the commission. =
>Not
>> >> >> constrained by military ties, as was Humes and Boswell, and not a "=
>man
>> >> >> off the street" they could indimidate easily, the WC simply chose n=
>ot
>> >> >> to call him a witness.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Yes, that's the CT answer, all right, based =
>> >> >> to call him a witness.
>>
>on suspicio=3D
>> >n.
>> >> >There's no real evidence there.
>>
>> >> > =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 =3DA0 Burkley was a Navy officer, as were Humes an=
>> >> >There's no real evidence there.
>>
>d Boswell.
>>
>> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
>> >> explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
>>
>> >> Fast forward to Humes' WC testimony. If you read page 367 carefully he=
>>
>> >> Hi Jean,
>>
>> >> I'd appreciate it if you'd consider this LN's "admittingly wild"
>> >> explanation for why Burkley wasn't asked to testify before the WC.
>>
> al=3D
>> >l
>> >> but says they knew that night the bullet that entered his upper back/l=
>owe=3D
>> >r
>> >> neck exited his throat. The bruising of the muscles near the trach wou=
>nd
>> >> could only have occurred at the instant he was shot and still had a ro=
>bus=3D
>> >t
>> >> heartbeat. There was no bruising, however, around the trach incision n=
>or
>> >> around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
>>
>> >> What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
>> >> transited until the infamous Humes-Perry phone call the next AM was a =
>> >> around some of the other incisions made by the PH docs.
>>
>> >> What I'm suggesting is that the story they didn't know the bullet
>hug=3D
>> >e
>> >> fabrication.
>>
>> >Hi, John,
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I'm afraid we're going to disagree here (no surp=
>rise to
>> >you, I'm sure).
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> ..I didn't know how to take you not replying [until now] to my rather
>> [check that, how about "extremely"] controversial explanation/theory for
>> why Burkley didn't testify before the WC......I was worried you didn't
>> even want to dignify it with a response. Note that if others had done
>> that, it wouldn't have bothered me, but you...I was concerned. Now, I'm
>> Ok.
>
> John, I think that the last time we spoke I mentioned that I try
>to stay out of the medical threads and other technical areas. It's nothing
>personal.
Hi Jean,
>> >you, I'm sure).
>>
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> ..I didn't know how to take you not replying [until now] to my rather
>> [check that, how about "extremely"] controversial explanation/theory for
>> why Burkley didn't testify before the WC......I was worried you didn't
>> even want to dignify it with a response. Note that if others had done
>> that, it wouldn't have bothered me, but you...I was concerned. Now, I'm
>> Ok.
>
> John, I think that the last time we spoke I mentioned that I try
>to stay out of the medical threads and other technical areas. It's nothing
>personal.
Well you swam to the middle of this lake already, I'm surprised that you
don't want to continue to the other side. But I understand.
:-)
>> As far as you disagreeing with me, of course I'm not surprised. Had you
>> agreed you would have joined a group of two [out of how many
>> researchers...hundreds?] who believe what I posited is feasible...and one
>> is myself. But the other one is extremely well respected in the JFK
>> research community, but I won't embarrass him by mentioning his name...hi
>> P....., hope you're doing well. (I think he still does read most of my
>> posts...no word yet from M....? Disappointing, but not surprised).
>>
>s
>> >> not short) of other evidence that supports the notion they knew about =
>the
>> >> throat bullet wound even before the body arrived at Bethesda...and tha=
>t
>> >> the bullet exited the throat.
>>
>> >> You may disagree with that premise, but just for argument's sake let's=
>> >> the bullet exited the throat.
>>
> sa=3D
>> >y
>> >> I'm correct. If you're with me then the obvious question would be, "Wh=
>y
>> >> would they fabricate such a thing"?
>>
>> >> I'm almost certain the answer is tied in with not only why the WC didn=
>> >> would they fabricate such a thing"?
>>
>'t
>> >> call Burkley in to testify, but also why the back wound location descr=
>ibe=3D
>> >d
>> >> in the death certificate and drawn on Boswell's face sheet seem to mat=
>ch
>> >> the hole in the clothes better than the back wound in the autopsy phot=
>o,
>> >> not to mention why the description of that wound in the autopsy report=
> wa=3D
>> >s
>> >> not definitive.
>>
>> >> I know, "wow"!
>>
>> >> :-)
>>
>> >> I believe they were extremely worried that the back wound to throat wo=
>> >> not definitive.
>>
>> >> I know, "wow"!
>>
>> >> :-)
>>
>und
>> >> trajectory "seemed to be" totally inconsistent with a shot from six fl=
>oor=3D
>> >s
>> >> up.
>>
>> >> As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
>> >> position (they didn't realize he'd been leaning forwward) the back wou=
>> >> up.
>>
>> >> As the HSCA's drawing [1HSCA231] shows, in the anatomically errect
>nd
>> >> seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
>> >> consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
>>
>> >> ...and they didn't want to announce that ominous possibility, at least=
>> >> seems too low in relation to the throat wound to form a trajectory
>> >> consistent with being caused by a shot from six floors up....
>>
> at
>> >> that time. IOW, they didn't want the nation to think there might have =
>bee=3D
>> >n
>> >> multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
>> >> orchestrated by the Soviets.
>>
>> >> That's why they led the FBI to believe the bullet popped out of the ba=
>> >> multiple shooters and therefore a conspiracy.......possibly even one
>> >> orchestrated by the Soviets.
>>
>ck
>> >> wound....but that the angle of the short "inch or so" depth of the wou=
>nd
>> >> was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
>>
>> >> And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
>> >> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0I just don't buy it, John, sorry. =A0How would Humes=
>> >> was consistent with a shooter firing from six floors up.
>>
>> >> And that's why S & O thought Humes only used his finger to probe the
>> >> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>>
> have
>> >concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
>>
>> My bad. Evidently they didn't conceal the use of metal probes from S & O
>> [Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
>> conceal from S & O was the fact they knew the bullet transited. IOW, Hume=
>> >concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
>>
>> My bad. Evidently they didn't conceal the use of metal probes from S & O
>> [Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
>s
>> told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any mor=
>e
>> than an inch or so. In my defense, S & O's report doesn't mention any met=
>al probes....go
>> figure.
>
> The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S & O:
>
> QUOTE:
>>>>>
> "The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we
>understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will
>call is the profound underscore *profound* unreliabillity of eyewitness
>testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else
>that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35-year-old
>eyewitness testimony.
>
> "I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in
>phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the
>autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and
>they are profoundly unreliable.
>
> "There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present
>at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with
>each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about
>what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years
>later. Their stories just were not the same story.
>
>UNQUOTE
I couldn't agree more.
>> figure.
>
> The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S & O:
>
> QUOTE:
>>>>>
> "The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we
>understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will
>call is the profound underscore *profound* unreliabillity of eyewitness
>testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else
>that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35-year-old
>eyewitness testimony.
>
> "I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in
>phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the
>autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and
>they are profoundly unreliable.
>
> "There were two, the two, there were two FBI agents who were present
>at the autopsy. They basically, I will exaggerate this, they were with
>each other all night long and they came out and they wrote a report about
>what they had seen. I took the depositions of these two people, 35 years
>later. Their stories just were not the same story.
>
>UNQUOTE
>> >I don't recall any mention of
>> >"metal probes" until years later,
>>
>> Humes mentions probes [2WCH361], but sticks to the story those probes
>> didn't help them figure out the bullet exited JFK's throat. Now, because
>> of rigor, we can't question what Humes said...i.e. that the probes didn't
>> go very far and they evidently didn't push them too hard for fear of
>> creating a false passage.
>>
>> But they surely didn't need a probe going all the way through to figure
>> out the bullet exited his throat....there was a lot of other forensic
>> evidence, X-rays, bruising of the pleura and neck muscles, etc. etc., not
>> to mention the clothes or Rather's announcement on national TV that
>> afternoon that a fatal bullet transited.
>>
>> My point, again, is that night at least they concealed the fact they knew
>> the bullet transited exiting the throat, and not that they used metal
>> probes (which were probably useless anyway..rigor?).
>
> I think they were genuinely puzzled, John. I just don't see
>any plausible way around that.
that afternoon on national TV that the bullet transited...or hear about
the announcement at the PH news conf. that there was a throat wound....or
that they couldn't figure out from all the medical and forensic evidence
that the bullet transited?
They saw that the apex of the pleaura and lung was bruised as well as the
muscels around the throat...and knew that that bruising had to have
occurred when he was shot and still--for a few minutes anyway--had a good
heartbeat.
Conversley they knew that there was no bruising around the incisions,
including the trach incision, made by the PH docs because his heartbeat at
that time had all but stopped. In a nutshell they knew the bullet
transited...and they didn't need to probe the wound, hear about the PH
news conf. or Rather's announcement, or see the clothers to figure that
out.
If they knew that (the bruising) and were forthcoming with S & O, then why
on God's green earth did the later think the bullet popped out?
Jean, the answer to this question is what my argument is all about....can
you answer it? Don't you think it's relevant, if not pivotal?
S & O were decieved....their report is full of inaccuracies, e.g. the
autopsists dixcovered the back wound during the late stages of the
autopsy?????
Jean they found the back wound right away during the pre-autopsy external
examination of the body.
There has to be a logical reason for why S & O were decieved that
night.....and the CBS memo is spot on...you must think it's at least
possible that Humes did not want Hoover to know the path of the bullet
didn't appear to be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
>> >and no photos of them, right?
>>
>> Karnei thought there had been a photo taken showing a probe in the wound
>> [HSCA interview, 8-29-77, and ARRB interview 5-21-96]. But there's no such
>> animal in the inventory, so we'll never know if he was misremembering or
>> not.
>
> I'd bet on "misremembering."
bullet transited, even if they didn't hear about Rather's announcement of
see the clothes. set aside the bruised lun, pleura, ans neck muscels,
don't you think they saw on the X-rays the air in the tissue between the
throat and back wounds...or the debris around C7/T1, not to mention the
slight fracture of the transverse process there?
Ok, I know...you think they didn't.
:-(
>> But Jean, probe witnesses also include Boswell [1966 Balt. Sun Interview
>> and ARRB dep., page 75], Stringer [ ARRB intervew 4-8-96], Kellerman [HSCA
>> interview 8-29-77], Robinson [HSCA interview 1-12-77], Knudsen ...I know
>> his credibility is questionable, but let's not throw the baby out with the
>> bathwater [HSCA interview 8-11-78], Jenkins HSCA interview 8-29-77], not
>> to mention the CBS Memo I referred to [ARRB MD-16].
>>
>> And lost in all this is the fact it would have been downright stupid for
>> them not to probe the back wound with other than their finger....IOW,
>> common sense tell us they did.
>
> Not if they were afraid of creating a false passage.
of several witnesses shows they did, but if they didn't there was still
more than enough evidence showing them the bullet transited.
BTW, I didn't even list all the probe witnesses.
Anyway, Humes testified they knew the throat muscels had been bruised at
the instant he was shot....same with the apex of the pleura and lung.
>> >I don't
>> >think Humes would've even known what the trajectory was, except in a very
>> >general way.
>>
>> I don't think all of you are giving Humes enough credit....respectfully
>> (in your case) most of you need for him to be grossly incompetent
>> (supposedly didn't know the EOP from the cowlick, didn't recognize
>> cerebellum tissue from cerebrum, didn't actually see, with the body right
>> in front of him, rear bone falling out down to the EOP like he said, etc.
>.
>>
>> If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
>> to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
>> the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
>> the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
>
> It wasn't his job to determine that. Or to misrepresent
>the evidence based on speculation.
Jean, sometimes it's necessary to make decisions that one would not
>>
>> If when he was in the anatomical errect postion, the back wound appeared
>> to be slightly lower than, at the same level, or even slightly above the
>> the throat wound, it wouldn't have taken a rocket scientist to conclude
>> the trajectory might not be consistent with a shot from six floors up.
>
> It wasn't his job to determine that. Or to misrepresent
>the evidence based on speculation.
ordinarilly make...we can't always go "by the book".
>> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
>> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
>> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
>> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>>
>> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
>> of caution.
>>
>> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
>> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
>> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
>> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
>> evidence, etc. etc.
>>
>> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
>> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
>> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
>> rank than Humes to lie.
>
> Ah, so Humes et al. were *ordered* to lie? When do you
>suppose that conversation took place?
:-)
Whether or not he should have held back that night from the FBI that they
knew the bullet transited is debateable...but the facts show he did.
Jean, I realize you don't have a military background, but I spent my
career in the Air Force....trust me there's no way in Hades that a Naval
Officer with an 05 paygrade [Humes] is going to feed false information to
the FBI or even falsify an autopsy report (especially if it was an autopsy
on the President) if there's a two-star Naval officer (Burkley) present or
involved.
I think what they did, while perhaps ill-advised, was well intended.
>> >> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, =
>and
>> >> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>> >> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the ti=
>> >> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>ssu=3D
>> >e
>> >> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not rea=
>lly=3D
>> >)
>> >> why HB&F & Ebersole didn't mention that air?...nor the possible fractu=
>re
>> >> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T=
>1?
>>
>> >> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S =
>& O=3D
>> >]
>> >> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late sta=
>ges
>> >> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one wh=
>o
>> >> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>> >> If they [HB&F & Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announce=
>> >> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>men=3D
>> >t
>> >> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base =
>of
>> >> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when the=
>y
>> >> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> >> autopsy proper began.
>>
>> >> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Hu=
>> >> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>> >> autopsy proper began.
>>
>mes
>> >> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>> >> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefo=
>> >> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>re
>> >> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>>
>> >They're in on it, too?
>>
>> They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
>> President's side...not like S & O did off and on.
>>
>> Also, Greer must have known Humes' ruse...I'm convinced he showed Humes
>> the clothes.
>>
>> Come on Jean, you surely must be skeptical of the official story that
>> Greer had them put in his WH locker by Rybka vs. giving them to
>> Humes...remember Rbyka never acknowledged having the clothes, period.
>>
>>And
>> why on earth would Greer not give Humes the clothes? To serure
>> evidence?...but then have them put in his WH locker vs. giving them right
>> away to the FBI who was collecting and documenting evidence (the Sec Svc
>> knew that, re. Kellerman)?
>
> You're asking me to read Greer's mind, John. Can't do it.
God forbid.
>> >> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>>
>> >They're in on it, too?
>>
>> They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
>> President's side...not like S & O did off and on.
>>
>> Also, Greer must have known Humes' ruse...I'm convinced he showed Humes
>> the clothes.
>>
>> Come on Jean, you surely must be skeptical of the official story that
>> Greer had them put in his WH locker by Rybka vs. giving them to
>> Humes...remember Rbyka never acknowledged having the clothes, period.
>>
>>And
>> why on earth would Greer not give Humes the clothes? To serure
>> evidence?...but then have them put in his WH locker vs. giving them right
>> away to the FBI who was collecting and documenting evidence (the Sec Svc
>> knew that, re. Kellerman)?
>
> You're asking me to read Greer's mind, John. Can't do it.
>>
>>
>> >> Anyway, sometime that weekend, before the autopsy report was completed=
>,
>> >> the story had been concocted about them not realizing the bullet trans=
>ite=3D
>> >d
>> >> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>>
>> >> There's no doubt whatsoever Perry and Humes did talk, but it surely wa=
>> >> until Saturday AM when Humes and Perry supposedly talked.
>>
>s
>> >> Friday afternoon, not Saturday AM. Remember Perry first told Specter t=
>hat
>> >> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
>> >> sure.
>>
>> >> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
>> >> phone calls Perry ever participated in...how could he possibly forget =
>> >> the call was Friday...then Specter convinced him if was Sat. AM....ya,
>> >> sure.
>>
>> >> That phone call must have been one of the most important and memorable
>wha=3D
>> >t
>> >> day it took place on? Heck, most concerned adults remember what they w=
>ere
>> >> doing after the assassination...I'm sure Perry remembered what day, if=
> no=3D
>> >t
>> >> what time that phone call took place.
>>
>> >> But when one tells one lie, usually other lies must be told to make th=
>> >> what time that phone call took place.
>>
>e
>> >> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>>
>> >> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
>> >> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
>> >Not necessarily. =A0The FBI report on the autopsy implied
>> >> entire story work....thus the B/S they didn't see the clothes.
>>
>> >> They had to say they didn't see the clothes because the clothes made it
>> >> obvious the bullet exited the throat (shirt collar slits and tie nick).
>> >that the collar and tie tears were caused by a fragment from the head
>> >wound.
>>
>> :-) =A0Jean, that's because they assumed (per Humes' deception, IMO) the
>> >wound.
>>
>> bullet that entered the back didn't transit. Heck, O'Neill and I knew each
>> other (his wife worked with my sister) and communicated several
>> times......and he believed (in spite of what I argued to him about the
>> validity of the SBT) until his death that a fragment from the head shot
>> exited the throat.
>
> The clothes didn't make it "obvious the bullet exited the
>throat," because the FBI didn't conclude the bullet transited even after
>examining the clothes at the FBI Lab.
Ok, so let's just say that the slits in the shirt and tie nick were
>> other (his wife worked with my sister) and communicated several
>> times......and he believed (in spite of what I argued to him about the
>> validity of the SBT) until his death that a fragment from the head shot
>> exited the throat.
>
> The clothes didn't make it "obvious the bullet exited the
>throat," because the FBI didn't conclude the bullet transited even after
>examining the clothes at the FBI Lab.
consistent with a transiting bullet.....those non-SBT believers thing that
the docs at PH made those slits and the tie nick....surely you don't agree
with them?
>> >Sorry, John, I just don't agree.
>>
>> That puts you in the overwhelming majority of all LNs and CTs (about
>> 99.99%)....heck you and Marsh are even in agreement that my theories are
>> wacky (I know you didn't say "wacky")...that should give you some
>> reassurance.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Thanks for responding...I figured if anyone could shoot a fatal hole in my
>> explanation in a civil manner, you could.
>>
>> Respectfully, Jean, I don't think you did.
>
> That's fine, John. Let's go with "agree to disagree."
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
claviger
May 4, 2012, 10:19:59 AM5/4/12
to
Anthony,
> > Why would they call untrained casual observers when they had the
> > autopsy report?
>
> Because the autopsy report was a lie and the autopsy doctors were
> incompetent.
In what way was the report a lie? Humes actually included an
inconvenient truth. He realized this in the middle of his Q&A before
the WC Panel. Two of the three prosectors were inexperienced with
gunshot wounds, which is different from being incompetent. They had
an Army expert on combat wounds to consult with during the autopsy.
He evidently took some of his own measurements to confirm the Humes
measurements. The autopsy may have been minimal rather than an
extensive forensic pathology investigation, however three panels
reviewed the WCR and concurred with the basic autopsy conclusion: two
bullet wounds on the President from a position behind the Limousine.
They agreed both entry wounds were through-and-through type gunshot
wounds, which validates the SBT. Given the forensic evidence of X-
rays there is no other rational conclusion they could possibly come to
that would make sense.
> > Why would they call untrained casual observers when they had the
> > autopsy report?
>
> Because the autopsy report was a lie and the autopsy doctors were
> incompetent.
inconvenient truth. He realized this in the middle of his Q&A before
the WC Panel. Two of the three prosectors were inexperienced with
gunshot wounds, which is different from being incompetent. They had
an Army expert on combat wounds to consult with during the autopsy.
He evidently took some of his own measurements to confirm the Humes
measurements. The autopsy may have been minimal rather than an
extensive forensic pathology investigation, however three panels
reviewed the WCR and concurred with the basic autopsy conclusion: two
bullet wounds on the President from a position behind the Limousine.
They agreed both entry wounds were through-and-through type gunshot
wounds, which validates the SBT. Given the forensic evidence of X-
rays there is no other rational conclusion they could possibly come to
that would make sense.
Bud
May 4, 2012, 10:20:06 AM5/4/12
to
investigation?
And what evidential value could be found in polling the laymen in
the gallery?
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 4:48:15 PM5/4/12
to
> And what evidential value could be found in polling the laymen in
> the gallery?
>
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 5:07:41 PM5/4/12
to
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 5:12:13 PM5/4/12
to
expertise. But I see nothing in the questions Specter asked the FBI agents
that hints at any Single Bullet Theory. If Specter was telling the truth
he didn't think it up until the end of April 1964. Certainly I don't know
of anyone who officially was proposing any Single Bullet Theory as early
as March 12, 1964. If you read between my lines can you figure out why I
qualified my statement by saying "at the autopsy"? Can you remember any
doctor, witness, or press who proposed a Single Bullet Theory on the
afternoon of the assassination or on Saturday?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md153.pdf
I really wish Canal would read this memo. S&O make it quite clear that the
autopsy doctors did not find the back wound until after 11:00 PM. And the
wound was only probed with a finger, not a metal probe.
In Specter's memo to Rankin about his questioning of the FBI agents I see
no hint that Specter is trying to lay the groundwork for a Single-Bullet
Theory. Can you point out a particularly significant word or phrase that
he used which might tip us off (in hindsight)?
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md154.pdf
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 5:38:13 PM5/4/12
to
planet? Do you know of any professional assassins who are JFK buffs? Are
you think of the Guild of Assassins on Arcturus Prime?
> Let me quote my own website:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Dr. George Burkley
>
> physician, and thus he was around in the ER at Parkland, with
> Kennedy?s body on the flight back to Washington, and in the room
> during the autopsy at Bethesda. It would seem that he saw and knew a
> lot.
>
> Thus it might seem important that on March 18, 1977, his personal
> lawyer talked by phone the HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague and told
> Sprague that Burkley ?has information in the Kennedy assassination
> lot.
>
> Thus it might seem important that on March 18, 1977, his personal
> lawyer talked by phone the HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague and told
> indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.?[24]
> Just what was this explosive information? Nothing produced by the
> HSCA gives any clue. But researcher Paul Hoch reported in the 5/31/87
> issue of his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy[25] ?Dr. Burkley recently
> HSCA gives any clue. But researcher Paul Hoch reported in the 5/31/87
> told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been
> part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and
> traveled was indicative of financial support.? Huh? No altered
> part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and
> wounds? No wounds requiring a shot from the front? No extra bullets?
>
So, this anecdote proves that Burkley was basing his opinion entirely on
>
that concept? You don't know what Burkley would have said and you don't
want to know.
> The Warren Commission meticulously examined Oswald?s finances, and
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 5:47:29 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>>>>> alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>>>>> separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>>>>> story there, Thalia?
>>>>
>>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice evasion, Tony. What's your better-than-the-SBT
>>> theory?
>>>
>>
>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>
> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
> person would go with the best theory out there.
>
Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> If the SBT is no good, why can't the CTs agree on an
>>>>> alternative, after all these years? You've got a low back wound, a
>>>>> separate throat wound, and no bullets found in between. What's the
>>>>> story there, Thalia?
>>>>
>>>>> Jean
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nice evasion, Tony. What's your better-than-the-SBT
>>> theory?
>>>
>>
>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>
> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
> person would go with the best theory out there.
>
> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
> the front?
>
>
>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>
>
> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
> information than he did?
>
it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just
pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter
SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in
the next millennium one of them will get it right.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
May 4, 2012, 5:53:53 PM5/4/12
to
On 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
*Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
But that's not sound logic. The data are full of noise. No theory
will fit the data perfectly.
This, by the way, is also true of real world science.
If you want to beat one theory, you need a better theory.
We are waiting.
What is your theory?
>> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
>> the front?
>>
>>
>>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>>
>>
>> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
>> information than he did?
>>
>
>In other words you also refuse to read the Humes SBT and can not refute
>it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just
>pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter
>SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in
>the next millennium one of them will get it right.
>
There is in fact a consensus that Kennedy and Connally were hit at
Z-223.
Deal with that.
If you don't like that theory, explain what is wrong with that.
Real disciplined inquiry tends to be convergent, and this has been.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>>
>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>>
>
>Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>
Go back and take your logic course again.
>On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>>
>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>>
>
>Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>
*Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
But that's not sound logic. The data are full of noise. No theory
will fit the data perfectly.
This, by the way, is also true of real world science.
If you want to beat one theory, you need a better theory.
We are waiting.
What is your theory?
>> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
>> the front?
>>
>>
>>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>>
>>
>> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
>> information than he did?
>>
>
>In other words you also refuse to read the Humes SBT and can not refute
>it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just
>pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter
>SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in
>the next millennium one of them will get it right.
>
Z-223.
Deal with that.
If you don't like that theory, explain what is wrong with that.
Real disciplined inquiry tends to be convergent, and this has been.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 5:57:09 PM5/4/12
to
>>>> wound....of course metal probes were used...the record confirms that.
>>
>>> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
>>> concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
>>
>> My bad. Evidently they didn't conceal the use of metal probes from S& O
>>
>>> I just don't buy it, John, sorry. How would Humes have
>>> concealed these "metal probes" from S&O?
>>
>> [Sibert's ARRB 9-11-77 interview, p. 111]. But, again, what they did
>> conceal from S& O was the fact they knew the bullet transited. IOW, Humes
>> told them that the probes didn't prove that the bullet penetrated any more
>> than an inch or so. In my defense, S& O's report doesn't mention any metal probes....go
>> figure.
>
> The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn once said this about S& O:
including the angles, entrances and exits.
Have you ever seen how Dr. Henry Lee recreates crime scenes to figure out
where the shots came from.
>>
>> IMO, this was a potentially grave situation for them...I think it would
>> have been imprudent, if not extremely irresponsible, for them to announce
>> to the FBI (who could know what Hoover would do with such information?)
>> that their examination showed there might have been multiple shooters.
>>
>> I think, given the gravity of the situation, they had to err on the side
>> of caution.
>>
>> I don't think I'm being unreasonable to think this makes better sense than
>> the silly official story that they didn't know about the throat wound
>> until the next AM......in spite of Rather's announcement, Perry saying
>> initially the call was Friday, the PH News Conference, the forensic
>> evidence, etc. etc.
>>
>> Also, IMO, it was not just Humes....he had others consulting. Again, if
>> I'm correct that Humes et al knew that night the bullet exited the throat,
>> it's only common sense that it would have taken someone with much more
>> rank than Humes to lie.
>
> Ah, so Humes et al. were *ordered* to lie? When do you
> suppose that conversation took place?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Also Humes would testify that the back wound, the apex of the pleura, and
>>>> throat wound all lined up.
>>
>>>> And that's not to mention that the HSCA radiologists saw air in the tissu=
>>> e
>>>> between the back and throat wounds...kind of makes you wonder (not really=
>>> )
>>>> of the tip of the transverse process nor the possible debris near C7/T1?
>>
>>>> IMO, the FBI was fed misinformation right and left by Humes...they [S& O=
>>
>>> ]
>>>> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
>>>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>>>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>>>> If they [HB&F& Burkley et al] were oblivious to Dan Rather's announcemen=
>>>> even thought Humes didn't know about the back wound until the late stages
>>>> of the autopsy...O'Neill saying later he thought Sibert was the one who
>>>> first noticed it [the back wound]!
>>
>>> t
>>>> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
>>>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>>>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>>>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>>>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>>>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>>>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>>>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>>
>>> They're in on it, too?
>>
>> They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
>> President's side...not like S& O did off and on.
>>>> on national TV that a bullet entered his throat and "exited" the base of
>>>> his neck on the backside, they certainly found the back wound when they
>>>> did the initial examination of the exterior of the body...before the
>>>> autopsy proper began.
>>
>>>> The CBS memo (I think you know the one I'm referring to) about what Humes
>>>> told a CBS executive supports the idea Humes was misleading the FBI.
>>
>>>> A side note: The Secret Service would not leave JFK's side and therefore
>>>> would have had to have been trusted by Humes.
>>
>>> They're in on it, too?
>>
>> They had no choice..as I previously asserted Kellerman wasn't leaving the
If not an exit, what did they say happened?
Exactly when did the FBI examine the clothes?
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2012, 7:52:55 PM5/4/12
to
On 5/4/2012 5:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>>>
>>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
>>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>>>
>>
>> Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>>
>
> Go back and take your logic course again.
>
> *Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
> evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
>
I didn't say refuted. I said pointed out your logic error.
> On 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
>>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>>>
>>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
>>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>>>
>>
>> Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>>
>
> Go back and take your logic course again.
>
> *Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
> evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
>
> But that's not sound logic. The data are full of noise. No theory
> will fit the data perfectly.
>
been saying all the time. Keep working on it and get back to us once
you've proven it.
> This, by the way, is also true of real world science.
>
> If you want to beat one theory, you need a better theory.
>
to prompt people to look for a better theory.
> We are waiting.
>
> What is your theory?
>
>
>
>>> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
>>> the front?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
>>>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
>>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
>>> information than he did?
>>>
>>
>> In other words you also refuse to read the Humes SBT and can not refute
>> it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just
>> pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter
>> SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in
>> the next millennium one of them will get it right.
>>
>
> There is in fact a consensus that Kennedy and Connally were hit at
> Z-223.
>
> Deal with that.
>
> If you don't like that theory, explain what is wrong with that.
>
> Real disciplined inquiry tends to be convergent, and this has been.
>
If you could just let go of the official lies, you might get somewhere.
Bud
May 4, 2012, 9:33:19 PM5/4/12
to
investigation.
> > And what evidential value could be found in polling the laymen in
> > the gallery?
>
> I said nothing about that.
incompetence of the autopsy.
Anthony Marsh
May 5, 2012, 2:05:54 PM5/5/12
to
And ignored the opinions of their wound ballistics experts.
>>> And what evidential value could be found in polling the laymen in
>>> the gallery?
>>
>> I said nothing about that.
>
> Yes, you did. You offered it as a remedy to the lying and
> incompetence of the autopsy.
>
Bud
May 5, 2012, 2:07:23 PM5/5/12
to
On May 4, 7:52 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 5:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> > <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/4/2012 5:53 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 May 2012 17:47:29 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> >> On 5/3/2012 7:50 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>> On 1 May 2012 20:37:49 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> >>> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
> >>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>
> >>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
> >>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>
> >> Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>
> > Go back and take your logic course again.
>
> > *Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
> > evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
>
> I didn't say refuted. I said pointed out your logic error.
>
> > But that's not sound logic. The data are full of noise. No theory
> > will fit the data perfectly.
>
> Fine, so you admit that you can't prove your theory. That's what we've
> been saying all the time. Keep working on it and get back to us once
> you've proven it.
>
> > This, by the way, is also true of real world science.
>
> > If you want to beat one theory, you need a better theory.
>
> No. All you have to do is point out a fatal flaw in the original theory
> to prompt people to look for a better theory.
You look for a different theory because you are enamored to the idea
>
> >>>> Another phony challenge. I don't have to have a competing theory to
> >>>> point out the errors in someone else's theory.
>
> >>> Yes you do. If you can't come up with a better theory, any sensible
> >>> person would go with the best theory out there.
>
> >> Argumentum ad Ignorantium.
>
> > Go back and take your logic course again.
>
> > *Something* happened. You seem to think that if you can find *any*
> > evidence against a theory, you have refuted it.
>
> I didn't say refuted. I said pointed out your logic error.
>
> > But that's not sound logic. The data are full of noise. No theory
> > will fit the data perfectly.
>
> Fine, so you admit that you can't prove your theory. That's what we've
> been saying all the time. Keep working on it and get back to us once
> you've proven it.
>
> > This, by the way, is also true of real world science.
>
> > If you want to beat one theory, you need a better theory.
>
> No. All you have to do is point out a fatal flaw in the original theory
> to prompt people to look for a better theory.
of conspiracy. You want the SBT scraped because it does away with the
need for boogeymen.
> > We are waiting.
>
> > What is your theory?
>
> The Modified Single-Bullet Theory.(TM)
men.
> >>> Do you, for example, believe that Kennedy was hit in the throat from
> >>> the front?
>
> >>>> I have suggested a Modified Single Bullet Theory similar to the Humes
> >>>> SBT. How many times are you going to refuse to answer MY questions?
> >>>> What errors do you see in the Humes SBT?
>
> >>> Why should anybody care about Humes SBT when we have a lot more
> >>> information than he did?
>
> >> In other words you also refuse to read the Humes SBT and can not refute
> >> it. I am not arguing that Humes was correct. He was an idiot. I am just
> >> pointing out that the correct solution does not have to be the Specter
> >> SBT. There are as many SBTs as there are WC defenders. Maybe some day in
> >> the next millennium one of them will get it right.
>
> > There is in fact a consensus that Kennedy and Connally were hit at
> > Z-223.
>
> > Deal with that.
>
> > If you don't like that theory, explain what is wrong with that.
>
> I have, millions of times.
>
> > Real disciplined inquiry tends to be convergent, and this has been.
>
> Real disciplined inquiry needs to be honest, which the WC was not.
nullified it. It just another of those things conspiracy mongers
choose to believe.
> If you could just let go of the official lies, you might get somewhere.
sit.
markusp
May 8, 2012, 8:12:22 PM5/8/12
to
On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:57:58 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> >If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
> >expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
> >early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
> >indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
> >caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
> >some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
>
> Mark, people become buffs for all sorts of reasons, often having
> nothing to do with their actual witness experience or professional
> experties.
That much is certain. However, not all "buffs" are CT's, and conversely,
> >If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
> >expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
> >early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
> >indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
> >caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
> >some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
>
> Mark, people become buffs for all sorts of reasons, often having
> nothing to do with their actual witness experience or professional
> experties.
LN's can easily meet the same labeling criteria.
>
> Let me quote my own website:
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Dr. George Burkley
>
> Dr. George Burkley was a Navy Admiral and the president’s personal
> physician, and thus he was around in the ER at Parkland, with
> Kennedy’s body on the flight back to Washington, and in the room
> during the autopsy at Bethesda. It would seem that he saw and knew a
> lot.
>
> Thus it might seem important that on March 18, 1977, his personal
> lawyer talked by phone the HSCA Chief Counsel Richard Sprague and told
> Sprague that Burkley “has information in the Kennedy assassination
> indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.”[24]
possessed something more tangible than his mere suspicions.
> Just what was this explosive information? Nothing produced by the
> HSCA gives any clue.
it. Recall that Burkley's lawyer, Illig, didn't magically dream up
Burkley's offer. Burkley told his lawyer he had "information", yet we
cannot know if Illig knew what it was.
> But researcher Paul Hoch reported in the 5/31/87
> issue of his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy[25] “Dr. Burkley recently
> told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been
> part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and
> traveled was indicative of financial support.” Huh? No altered
> wounds? No wounds requiring a shot from the front? No extra bullets?
lawyer to approach Sprague directly, it raises eyebrows to think that
Burkley was flapping his lips openly to his relatives about it. Maybe
Burkley's information indeed demonstrated wound alteration, origins of
shots, extra bullets, and maybe even a chunk of JFK's skull found by Billy
Harper that proved Oswald may not have been the one, or the only one.
>
> The Warren Commission meticulously examined Oswald’s finances, and
> published the results.[26] Maybe they got it wrong. But if they did,
> Burkley was in no better position to know that than your eccentric
> cousin who has a whole bookcase full of conspiracy volumes and talks
> all the time about the Illuminati.
he became conscious of financial support outside of their means, it
prompted him to approach the HSCA.
Thanks, .John!
~Mark
Jean Davison
May 8, 2012, 11:43:21 PM5/8/12
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
available at Lancer:
http://www.jfklancer.com/burkleyhsca.html
His statement concluded,
"I understand that this affidavit may be introduced and
received into evidence by the Select Committee on Assassinations of the
United States House of Representatives, and may lead them to make various
findings of fact, and the statutes applicable to Congressional
investigations, including but not limited to those concerning false
statements, obstruction, or misleading, would subject me to criminal
penalties for not telling the whole and complete truth in this affidavit."
Jean
Anthony Marsh
May 9, 2012, 8:19:16 AM5/9/12
to
On 5/8/2012 8:12 PM, markusp wrote:
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:57:58 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>
>>> If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
>>> expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
>>> early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
>>> indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
>>> caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
>>> some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
>>
>> Mark, people become buffs for all sorts of reasons, often having
>> nothing to do with their actual witness experience or professional
>> experties.
>
> That much is certain. However, not all "buffs" are CT's, and conversely,
> LN's can easily meet the same labeling criteria.
>
Most WC defenders apply that term derogatorily only to conspiracy
> On Thursday, May 3, 2012 6:57:58 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
>
>>> If he was, or was not, involved in a conspiracy, we likely would not
>>> expect him to provide a running commentary on his suspicions at such an
>>> early date. But we must infer from his attempt to address the HSCA that he
>>> indeed possessed something physical or had knowledge of some aspect that
>>> caused him to do so. It's not unreasonable for us to suspect Burkley had
>>> some juicy information or physical evidence that would support his claim.
>>
>> Mark, people become buffs for all sorts of reasons, often having
>> nothing to do with their actual witness experience or professional
>> experties.
>
> That much is certain. However, not all "buffs" are CT's, and conversely,
> LN's can easily meet the same labeling criteria.
>
researchers. In other controversies the term history buff is applied
equally to both sides.
making public.
0 new messages